When we look at it, the reason why God directly improve the world through doing things like, as you ask here, performing miracles to those who would benefit from them is actually a rather simple one. See, God is the best possible being. And the best possible being would, by definition, want to make reality as good as it could.

It would also be omnipotent, so "as good as it could" would be infinitely.

By definition the best possible being must, for anything it does, do it to the best extent of its ability. A being that doesn't always do the best things it can isn't as good as one that does, afterall. So if it were to directly improve reality (with the immediate and open-ended goal being direct improvement), it’d have to do so infinitely.

To illustrate that, suppose God did decide to directly improve for the sake of direct improvement. He directly adds 2 “units” of good to the world. Wouldn’t it be better if he added 3? And it’d be still better if he added 4. He couldn’t just do 2 since the best possible being must take the best action it can. And a being that always decided to add 3 units would be better than one that always decided to add 2.

So you’d have to take this all the way to infinity. He’d have to add ∞ units of good.

But, problem is, infinites aren’t possible. They’re self-contradictions, and so can’t exist anymore than a colorless yellow fruit could. We can see that with a simple calculation:

∞-∞ = 0 (because you’re taking the entire thing away)

And, ∞/2= ∞ (since if you were to take every other object out of an infinite number of objects, you’d still have infinite objects)

But, when you divided ∞ by 2, you took an infinite number of objects away, so you were subtracting ∞. So, ∞-∞ simultaneously equals 0 and ∞, which is a contradiction. There can’t simultaneously be nothing and an infinite number of things.

To see how that would play out in a scenario, suppose we had a container that contained its own separate space and time inside. Inside there are two beings. One of them wants to make an infinite number of objects in the space of a minute. After half a minute passes in the container, it creates ten objects, each labeled with the numbers 1 through 10. Once it reaches half of the remaining time, it creates double the previous amount, twenty more, labeling them 11 through 30. It continues making double the previous and labeling them every time it reaches half the remaining time.

The other being, at each half-point, destroys one. At half a minute, it destroys the object labeled 1. At half the remaining time, it destroys the object labeled 2. It continues doing this at each half-point.

Now, for us, once we know the minute in the container has passed and we open it, how many of the objects will be inside?

There would simultaneously be infinite objects, and no objects.

Every specific object is taken, yet there will always be more objects that are not taken – so we will simultaneously have an infinite number of objects, and none.

There would be no specific object about which we could say “that wasn’t destroyed”. Object 1 was destroyed in the first group, object 2 in the second, the tenth and eleventh in the tenth and eleventh. You could always say “this object was destroyed when that group was made”.

Yet, not all the objects are destroyed. At each half point, the number that have not been destroyed increases by definition – since the number of objects grows each time exponentially, yet only one is removed. So the number of objects remaining always grows: for every given halfway point, the number of objects made is greater than the number destroyed, even more so than at the previous halfway point. So after that is repeated infinitely, there would be an infinite number of objects remaining.

So, simultaneously, every object is destroyed, and yet there’s an infinite number of objects that have not been destroyed. It’s a contradiction for there to simultaneously be nothing and an infinite number of things.

So as we can see, in that example, ∞-∞ is simultaneously ∞ (since there are an infinite number of objects that are not destroyed) and 0 (since every particular object is destroyed), resulting in a contradiction, just as we’d expect from our earlier calculation.

So, its logically impossible for infinites to exist.

So direct improvement isn’t an option. Instead, the best possible being acts with the goal of ensuring good can grow. That's the best possible criteria for his taking action, since it ensures good will always be increasing, and doesn't run into the infinite improvement problem.

So when his direct action is required for further improvement to take place, he acts and ensures that it does. (Such as when he created the world. There can’t be any improvement if all there is is nothing, so he took action and created). But when it isn’t, he doesn't act.

Does it make more sense now why God doesn't present himself?